such lien be declared prior and superior to the rights of the defendants; that plaintiff be allowed to foreclose the said lien; that, under said foreclosure, that it be decreed that the land be sold in the manner now provided for sales of land under mortgage foreclosure; and the proceeds of the sale applied to the payment of the costs and expenses incident thereto, and then to the note with interest and protest fees; and, in the event that the land does not sell for sufficient to cover the above, that a deficiency judgment be entered against Josephine Howe, Thomas J. Clifford and Farmers National Bank of Hendricks, and that the purchaser, at the sale, receive the usual certificate of sale, and, in case of no redemption, the usual sheriff’s deed.
The defendant Allen interposed a demurrer to the complaint, on. four different grounds, among which was one, to-wit: that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in favor of plaintiff and against defendant. It was on this ground that the court sustained the demurrer, and whether the court erred in making its order sustaining the demurrer, we are to determine.
It is elementary that the demurrer admits all of the allegations of the complaint, or of the pleading to which it is interposed, that are well pleaded. The question is—assuming all the facts pleaded by plaintiff to be true—are they of such nature, character or effect as to state a cause of action: and, if substantiated by proper evidence, do they warrant recovery of any relief?
In order to determine the questions presented on this appeal, we must determine whether or not the contract of purchase is in the nature of security for the payment of plaintiff's note; and whether or not plaintiff is entitled to resort to that security, by bringing an action, which, in form and substance and by the relief demanded, is the same as that to foreclose a mortgage by action. We are required to determine several other controverted questions of law presented in the case. “That determination cannot be accomplished until the relative interests of the parties to the contract, in the land, are defined.
This, we find our initiatory task. It lies at the threshold of our examination of this case. What, then, is the relative interest of each of the parties to the contract, in the land? Their relationship to it, and to each other? We are of the opiriion, that it may with certainty be stated, as a general principle of law, applicable to this character of contracts, and one heretofore enunciated by this court, that, where the owner of land sells
